👉 An order has arrived for Péter Magyar… from the banks of the Sava!
Last week, the European People’s Party held its annual summit in Zagreb, attended among others by Manfred Weber and Ursula von der Leyen. At the meeting, important decisions were made, including plans to abolish the member states’ veto rights and to reshape the European Union into a military alliance.
❗ They also made it clear that the current Hungarian government stands in the way of these plans. That is why they need a puppet government. If they place a controlled figure at the helm, that person would never be able to say no to Brussels’ demands.
To achieve their goal, they will use every possible tool. They will stop at nothing: hired thugs, criminals, and online intimidation are all active instruments of the TISZA party’s so-called “country of love.”
❌ We must not allow them to turn us against one another, and we must not fall for any left-wing provocation. In April, we must say no to these as well. Only this way can we preserve peace and security, and only this way can we protect the achievements we have already made.
That is why Fidesz is the safe choice.
These European People’s Party jamborees always seem to be quite “successful.” This time, the entire EPP crowd gathered in Zagreb—Weber was there, Merz was there, and Mrs. von der Leyen as well. And what did they manage to agree on? Well, that the veto right isn’t such a good thing, apparently. That it’s not so good if member states have a say in decisions made over their heads—and might even be able to block them.
The European People’s Party is now working on pushing through various changes across the European Union. And the other thing they openly stated at this meeting was that the European Union should function more like a military alliance. The EU is being transformed toward new alliance structures. In this framework, even NATO’s Article 5 and the Lisbon arrangements start to look weaker by comparison.
So let’s put this together: veto rights—gone. A military alliance—instead, perfectly fine. What would follow from this? That the European Union could be steered in a direction where troops could be sent, for example to Ukraine, without any meaningful input from the member states.
This is precisely the kind of situation where it takes serious strength for a sovereign country to say no. And this is exactly what Viktor Orbán has been able to do over the past years: say no to every Brussels and EPP madness. This is something Péter Magyar would never, ever be capable of. We can see that whenever an instruction arrives from Brussels, Péter Magyar obediently nods his head like a good little boy.
That is why we cannot entrust the country to Péter Magyar: because he cannot say no to Brussels—unlike Viktor Orbán, who has said no many times before, and rightly so. Just think of migration, the war, and I could go on.
1️⃣ External Command Narrative (“The order came from the banks of the Sava”)
👉 Technique: subordination + traitor framing
- “orders were received”
- “a controlled man”
- “a puppet government”
❌ What is missing:
- a concrete document
- an official decision
- a direct quote
- a vote
- a draft piece of legislation
👉 Function:
It does not debate Péter Magyar’s policies. Instead, it strips him of political agency, making debate unnecessary.
If someone acts on orders → they are not a legitimate political actor.
2️⃣ Abolishing the veto = war (false causality)
👉 Technique: fear stacking + distortion
Claim chain:
veto rights may weaken
→ EU becomes a military alliance
→ troops are sent
→ Ukraine
→ war
❌ Logical flaws:
- the veto debate is an institutional governance issue, not a military decision
- the EU is not NATO; there is no automatic military engagement
- there is no mechanism that allows troops to be deployed “without member-state consent”
👉 This is panic logic, not legal reality.
3️⃣ Blurring NATO Article 5 with the EU
👉 Technique: concept conflation
- NATO = military defense alliance
- EU = political and economic community
❌ The text deliberately merges the two to imply:
“If it’s the EU → then it’s war.”
This is a classic fear-based oversimplification.
4️⃣ “We are peace, they are violence” (reverse victimhood)
👉 Technique: victim–perpetrator role reversal
Claims:
- “thugs”
- “criminals”
- “online threats”
❌ Absent:
- police cases
- indictments
- verdicts
- concrete incidents
👉 Function:
First, it criminalizes the opponent; then it presents itself as the sole guarantor of peace.
This is psychological self-absolution:
“We are not inciting — we are merely defending ourselves.”
5️⃣ Orbán as the sole protector, everyone else unfit
👉 Technique: savior narrative
- “only he can say no”
- “everyone else is a good little boy”
This creates a black-and-white worldview:
- either Orbán
- or chaos / war / Brussels
❌ What is excluded:
- institutions
- diplomacy
- coalition politics
- multiple interpretations of national interest
6️⃣ Timed mobilization (“In April, we must say no”)
👉 Technique: emotional closure
At the end of the text:
- no new information
- no evidence
- only a command: “vote”
This is the classic propaganda ending:
fear → enemy → savior → voting
🧠 Overall picture – why does this work on many people?
Because it is:
- simple
- emotional
- cognitively effortless
- built on familiar enemy images
It does not inform — it directs emotions.